Natco Pharma Limited VS Additional Commissioner

This order will now dispose of the captioned writ petition and captioned ‘writ miscellaneous petition’ (‘WMP’ for the sake of brevity) This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the listing on 09.12.2022 A scanned reproduction.

This order will address and dispose of the captioned writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition, hereafter referred to as ‘WMP’ for brevity This order should be read in conjunction with and as a continuation of earlier proceedings from 09.12.2022 A scanned reproduction of these earlier proceedings provides clear evidence and captures the core issue before this Court As the earlier proceedings from 09.12.2022 are integral to this order, the short forms, abbreviations, and references used in the earlier order will continue to be used here for convenience and clarity.

This order addresses the captioned writ petition and ‘writ miscellaneous petition’ (WMP) and should be read alongside and as a continuation of the earlier proceedings from 09.12.2022 The earlier proceedings are crucial as they encapsulate the core issue before the Court and their scanned reproduction serves as a critical reference The short forms and abbreviations used in the previous order will remain in use in this order for convenience and clarity Today, Ms N.V. Lakshmi, counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) [Revenue Counsel] for the sole respondent, are present before the Court.

This order addresses the writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition, referred to as ‘WMP’ for brevity This order must be read alongside the earlier proceedings from 09.12.2022 A scanned reproduction of these earlier proceedings captures the core issue before the Court and is an essential part of this order Therefore, the abbreviations and references from the earlier order will continue to be used for clarity and convenience Today, Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the sole respondent, are present before the Court The learned revenue counsel refers to the earlier proceedings and submits that regarding a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act, the sole respondent is not the appellate authority The appellate authority is the ‘Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

The court is now addressing the writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition (WMP) filed earlier. This order must be read in conjunction with and as a continuation of the proceedings from 09.12.2022, which detail the main issues before the court. The earlier proceedings, being an integral part of this order, mean that abbreviations and references used previously will be maintained for clarity. Today, the counsel for the writ petitioner, Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, and the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent, Mr. C.Harsha Raj, are present. The learned revenue counsel clarified that under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act, the sole respondent is not the appellate authority, which is the Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, located at Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Considering the good faith of the writ petitioner, the facts of the case, and the small refund amount of Rs.9.42 lakhs, the court views this case as an exception, stating it will not set a precedent for similar cases and is inclined to consider 12.07.2022 as the date of appeal.

The order will now address both the writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition (WMP) in conjunction with the earlier proceedings dated 09.12.2022, which are integral to this order and capture the core issue before the Court. Short forms and abbreviations used previously will continue to be used for clarity. Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the sole respondent, were present. The revenue counsel highlighted that the appellate authority for a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act is the Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, located at the Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Considering the writ petitioner’s bona fides, the specific circumstances of the case, and the fact that the refund amount claimed is Rs. 9.42 lakhs, the Court decided to treat this case as a unique matter without setting a precedent for future cases, recognizing 12.07.2022 as the appeal date. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent, with Mr. C.Harsha Raj accepting notice on behalf of the second respondent. The Registry will make necessary amendments before issuing a certified copy or uploading the order.

This order resolves the captioned writ petition and writ miscellaneous petition (WMP) and must be read alongside the earlier proceedings from 09.12.2022, which capture the main issue before the Court and form an integral part of this order with abbreviations and references continuing for clarity. Today, Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the sole respondent, appeared before the Court. The learned revenue counsel noted that for a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act, the appellate authority is the Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Considering the writ petitioner’s bonafides, the case facts, and the relatively small refund amount of Rs.9.42 lakhs, the Court treats this as a unique matter without setting a precedent for future cases, recognizing 12.07.2022 as the appeal date. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST Appeal-II, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006, is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent, with Mr. C.Harsha Raj accepting notice on their behalf, and the Registry is directed to make necessary amendments before issuing the certified copy or uploading the order. The writ petitioner’s case involves a refund claim of a little over Rs.9.42 lakhs, arguing that the supply was made to a 100% EOU, thus qualifying as deemed export, but the refund order dated 06.04.2022 from the first respondent contends it is a wrong ITC claim, with the Court refraining from expressing any opinion on this.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: